Employer-employee relationships can be valid even among relatives; compensation interest must start from the accident date, not the award date.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the insurer of the Vehicle No.UP-14-U- 9433 against the impugned judgment and award dated 23.03.2012 passed by the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad in W.C. Case No. 83 of 2010 (Shabbir Ahmed & another vs. Shehnawaz and others), whereby for the untimely death of Jaane Alam in a road accident that occurred on 16.05.2010, a compensation of Rs.4,25,084/- along with default interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order has been awarded to the claimants (father and mother), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of Vehicle No.UP-14-U-9433.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the deceased Jaane Alam was allegedly employed as conductor on Vehicle No.UP-14-U-9433 by his elder brother Shehnawaz which was improbable because no documentary proof of such employment was produced before the tribunal. It was further submitted that the owner Shehnawaz of the above Vehicle No.UP-14-U-9433 did not appear in the witness box to face cross examination by the insurance company, as such, merely on the basis of his admission in the written statement, it was not proved that the deceased was employed as a conductor on the above vehicle. It was further submitted that the claimants have filed the claim petition on false grounds to claim fraudulent compensation from the insurance company, which was not legally maintainable but the Commissioner has held otherwise. It was also submitted that the claimants have rightly not been awarded any interest on the compensation by the Commissioner.

3. In support of his above submission learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case law of the Apex Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2007) 13 SCC 446 and the decision of this Court in United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Giri & others, Manu/UP/1379/2019. For the award of interest on compensation he has relied on Mamta Devi & Ors. vs. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, 2023 INSC 566 .

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submitted that the owner/employer Shehnawaz of Vehicle No.UP-14-U-9433 filed his written statement before the Commissioner in which he admitted that the deceased was employed as conductor on his above vehicle, who was being paid monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-. He further submitted that there is no bar on the part of the employer to employee his relative as a conductor on his vehicle. It was further submitted that the Commissioner has awarded conditional interest on the compensation awarded to the claimants, whereas the claimants were entitled to get interest at the rate of12% per annum from the date of the accident.

5. Learned counsel has submitted that the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial Act, in which, strict rules of evidence and pleading are not applicable, as such, even if the owner/employer of the offending vehicle has not appeared in the witness box to face cross examination of the insurance company even then, it is not fatal to the claimants case and the claimants can rely on his admission made in the written statement submitted before the Commissioner.

6. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case law T.S. Shylaja Vs. Oriental Insurance Company & another, (